Recently I posted an article on Logical Inconsistencies, and was encouraged by the amount of give and take dialogue. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and would be horrified if they did. But I really have to take issue with the logical fallacies that are constantly perpetuated on this forum.
(1) All Christians/Creationists are liars and/or fools. Regardless of the evidence I show, even from sites such as TalkOrigins, I’m told I’m lying. I recently posted a quote about Stephen J Gould, which was then attributed to me. This quote was from his contemporaries and peers, who attacked him in the most vicious manner possible, because he dared disagree with their methods of gathering data, and the conclusions they drew from it. Here it is again:
‘If you've read anything Stephen J. Gould has ever said about evolutionary biology, I have some bad news for you. In the field of evolutionary biology at large, Gould's reputation is mud. Not because he was wrong. Many honest scientists have made honest mistakes. What Gould did was much worse, involving deliberate misrepresentation of science.
In his 1996 book Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, Stephen J. Gould explains how modern evolutionary biology is very naive about evolutionary progress. Foolish evolutionary biologists, says Gould, believe that evolution has a preferred tendency toward progress and the accumulation of complexity. But of course - Gould kindly explains - this is simply a statistical illusion, bolstered by the tendency to cite hand-picked sequences like bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man. You could equally well explain this apparent progress by supposing that evolution is undergoing a random walk, sometimes losing complexity and sometimes gaining it. If so, Gould says, there will be a left bound, a minimum at zero complexity, but no right bound, and the most complex organisms will seem to grow more complex over time. Even though it's really just a random walk with no preference in either direction, the distribution widens and the tail gets longer.
What romantics, ha ha, those silly evolutionary biologists, believing in progress! It's a good thing we had a statistically sophisticated thinker like Stephen J. Gould to keep their misconceptions from infecting the general public. Indeed, Stephen J. Gould was a hero - a martyr - because evolutionary biologists don't like it when you challenge their romantic preconceptions, and they persecuted him. Or so Gould represented himself to the public.’
These were not my words, but I was excoriated as a result of publishing this.
(2) I spoke of the paucity of the fossil record when it comes to human evolution. My meaning was quite clear, yet I was shown evidence of other fossils. Trotting out straw men does not improve your case, neither does calling me a liar. If we gathered together all the human fossil remains, we could not put together a complete skeleton. Yet we are told that there are enough transitional fossils to establish the descent of man. I’d love to see these guys do a jigsaw puzzle!
I speak purely as a layman, but even I know that that is not compelling evidence for a scientific theory, which is spoken of as fact. You speak blithely of the ‘God of the gaps’, when mentioning Christianity, but there are so many gaps in evolution, that it would take a shift on a Gallileoan scale to make it compelling. The evidence for abiogenesis is non-existent, and yet the people who say there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the historicity of the Bible, and the relevance of Christianity, quite happily accept that the impossible happened, and life popped into existence from non-life.
The number of anomalies in evolution, and the sheer level of coincidence needed for life to evolve, in any form whatsoever, is 1 in 10 to the power of 34 000. So to say, impossible. DNA is utterly inert without protein, but this is completely overlooked. Adaptation of a species to its environment is quoted as more proof.
No race on earth, regardless of how harsh their environment is, has been born with tough skin on their feet. Why not? Haven’t we been around long enough as a race?
Richard Dawkins’ explanation of the evolution of the eye was actually funny. That was why I wrote the first Abner and Buford skit. It made me laugh, and I decided to have some fun with it. He took Charles Darwin’s ridiculous postulations and presented his own theory as fact. And it is lapped up by the so-called intellectuals on this site!
Now I know I’m not a doctor, nor am I a biologist, but when I read that the time it would take to allow blood to clot, if evolution were the driver of that process, would be in the region of, wait for it, 100 billion years, that made me think, hey, wait minute! That’s a tad longer than the human race has been around.
(3) So we come to the only logical explanation. Evolution is a religion and, because it’s a fairly new religion, reacts in exactly the same way the Mediaeval church did when questioned. They attack! Granted they don’t have the same powers, but they react in the same way all fundamentalist religions do. Attack! Attack! Attack!
Sound far-fetched? I’ll give you a comparison, and a time-line.
Andrew Russell Wallace: fulfils the same work Moses did, in laying out the groundwork. The law, if you will.
Charles Darwin: occupies the same status as Jesus does in Christianity. To question him and his writings is to invite ridicule and venomous diatribe.
Thomas Huxley: occupied the same station as St. Paul. He was Darwin’s bulldog and was partly responsible for protecting the work done by his master.
Sir Julian Huxley: how can the similarity with St. Augustine be missed? Here was the man who fought the good? fight, who defended Darwinism, as it was then popularly known, and wrote volumes on the subject.
Richard Dawkins: now this one is tough. I don’t know if I should compare him with Billy Graham or Benny Hinn. He’s an evangelist, in the mould of Billy Graham, but he’s morally on the level of Benny Hinn. Still, you know him better than I do; you make the call.
So there you have it then. If all the laws of physics predicate against something happening, and the followers of the discipline still believe it happens, and is happening, what could it be but a religion?
Peace and blessings upon all of you good folk on News24!